Cover not available

In:Thinking and Speaking About Time: A cognitive linguistic approach
Edited by Rita Brdar-Szabó and Mario Brdar
[Human Cognitive Processing 81] 2026
► pp. 351–383

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 13
From temporality to dynamicity

A data-based analysis of Hungarian verbal and participial constructions

 | Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapest
 | Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapest
 | Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapest
Published online: 27 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.81.13kug
Abstract
The chapter investigates within the cognitive linguistic framework of verb semantics how the specific nature of various event structures (e.g., manipulation of objects, dynamic motion, perception) contributes to the construal of temporal meaning in the elaboration of present (continuous) participle constructions in Hungarian. We assume that verb temporality still prevails in the participial construction, however, the dynamicity of the processual representation and the scope of construal (and its conceptual resolution, i.e., acuity) undergo some changes. These changes are closely related to a reconstrual of schematic figures with respect to the base verb’s semantic structure. The paper investigates reconstrual in terms of Langacker’s control cycle model with a small-scale qualitative corpus analysis. The material of the study consists of occurrences of particular finite verbs and participles in the Hungarian National Corpus.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Material and methods
    • 3.1Corpus data
    • 3.2Data analysis/Analytical categories
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1The érint ‒ érintő (‘touch’ ‒ ‘touching’) group
    • 4.2The fut ‒ futó (‘run’ ‒ ‘running’) group
    • 4.3The lát ‒ látó (‘see’ ‒ ‘seeing’) group
  • 5.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
References (18)
References
Alm-Arvius, Ch. 1993. The English verb see: A study in multiple meaning. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz. 2010. Scope as a cognitive tool in tense analysis. Linguistica Silesiana, 31, 7–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2012. Compounding in cognitive linguistics. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imrényi, A. 2017. Form-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 287–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kugler, N., & Simon, G. 2018. The schematization of Hungarian participle-noun compounds. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 31, 35–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. The English present. Temporal coincidence vs. epistemic immediacy. In A. Patard, & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality (45–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 405–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oravecz, Cs., Váradi, T., & Sass, B. 2014. The Hungarian gigaword corpus. Proceedings of LREC, 1719–1723. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-03-16.)
Paradis, C. 2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 15, 541–573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A. 2018. Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics 29(3): 371–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shagal, K. 2018. Participial systems in Uralic languages: An overview. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 9(1), 55–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.) 2019. Perception metaphors. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolcsvai Nagy, G. 2017. Jelentéstan (Semantics). In G. Tolcsvai Nagy (Ed.), Nyelvtan (Grammar) (207–499). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tóth-Czifra, E. 2015. Suffixation and what else? A cognitive linguistic analysis of the Hungarian deverbal suffix -Ó. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 30, 5–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue